Trump v. California · ¶87

The majority’s analysis thus fails to draw obvious inferences about the Order’s downstream effects from the undisputed facts in this record. It also sidesteps a key factual finding: that the Plaintiff States are imminently injured by an Order directing any changes to their balloting materials or systems before the November elections. See ＿＿＿ F. 4th, at ＿＿＿, App. 11a (“[T]he summary judgment record reflects that any change to the kind of envelopes state and local officials must use for voting by mail will necessarily force the Plaintiff States to incur monetary and operational costs” (emphasis in original)). The Court chastises the District Court for “guess[ing]” and “speculat[ing]” regarding the exact “shape” of the final rule. Ante, at 4–5. But such precision is immaterial when well-supported findings of fact indicate that any alteration is injurious.

slip opinion
Source edition
Passage preview. Read in context for the complete text, notes and references.